Citation: Lamond, IR (2018) The challenge of articulating human rights at an LGBT ‘mega-event’: a personal reflection on Sao Paulo Pride 2017. Leisure Studies, 37 (1). pp. 36-48. ISSN 0261-4367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2017.1419370 Link to Leeds Beckett Repository record: https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4725/ Document Version: Article (Accepted Version) The aim of the Leeds Beckett Repository is to provide open access to our research, as required by funder policies and permitted by publishers and copyright law. The Leeds Beckett repository holds a wide range of publications, each of which has been checked for copyright and the relevant embargo period has been applied by the Research Services team. We operate on a standard take-down policy. If you are the author or publisher of an output and you would like it removed from the repository, please contact us and we will investigate on a case-by-case basis. Each thesis in the repository has been cleared where necessary by the author for third party copyright. If you would like a thesis to be removed from the repository or believe there is an issue with copyright, please contact us on [email protected] and we will investigate on a case-by-case basis. The challenge of articulating human rights at an LGBT ‘mega-event’: A personal reflection on Sao Paulo Pride 2017 Abstract This paper brings together Critical Event Studies (CES) and a reflexive/narrative autoethnographic approach in order to stimulate a debate around the commodification of public space, and the management of mega-events of dissent. This is achieved using the example of the researcher’s participation in the 2017 Sao Paulo Pride. Though there are no official figures, the 2017 parade is thought to have had nearly 4 million attendees, making it one of the largest LGBT demonstrations in the world. However, corporate interests in the event have commodified dissent in order to commercialise ‘otherness’, and the city has absorbed the demonstration into its cultural offer as a global brand. The confluence of these factors produces a pattern of place dressing and an erasure that depoliticise the event and undermines its capacity to effectively articulate human rights. Currently Brazil has some of the most liberal LGBT laws of any South American state, yet recently Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)/Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) human rights have been threatened by a rapid rise in hate crime as well as the emergence of an evangelical Christian right in state and regional assemblies. Within such a context the need to revive the roots of Pride as an articulation of otherness that demands recognition, and as a robust defence of human rights for the LGBT/SOGI community, is more pressing than ever. Introduction This paper draws together a reflexive/narrative autoethnographic approach (as suggested by Ellis, 2004 & Ellis et al., 2011) to focus on the personal in the political within a large-scale event of dissent. This is combined with a theoretical orientation derived from critical event studies (CES). The discussions aim to engage with a debate around the commodification of public space and the management of dissent through a personal account of, and reflection on, my participation in an LGBT mega-event: Sao Paulo Pride 2017. 1 The reasons for undertaking this reflection are two-fold: 1) to challenge myself by interrogating my own activist and serious leisure (Stebbins 2007) practice; 2) to provoke a critical conversation about the spaces and places of mega-events as platforms for LGBT/SOGI human rights activism. By presenting a reflection on my own flow through the event, and how the event flowed through me, I place myself in the position of vulnerable researcher (Winkler, 2017) as well as reflective practitioner engaged in a process of reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983). As Dietering et al (2016) argue, ‘autoethnography … pushes the researcher to connect their experience to something broader, to draw in theory, culture and social factors, to make deeper meaning’ (p.26). It is the combination of this methodological approach with CES that allows for a construal of event as a contested space of disruption (Spracklen & Lamond 2016). As a reflection on how the event impacted my own practice, it has challenged me to ask different kinds of questions (Simpson & Archer, 2017) about how I engage with my activism, whilst being open to ‘surprise, puzzlement or confusion in a situation (I encountered as) …uncertain or unique’ (Schön 1983, p. 68). Such an approach is qualitative, and is more in keeping with confronting the practice of LGBT/SOGI human rights campaigning from a personally reflexive position as an activist, rather than endeavouring to secure some perspective on a universal truth. In this way, I adopt a similar stylistic approach to that of Reger (2015) in her presentation of participant observation at a Slut Walk in 2011. I begin with outlining one perspective on CES and proceed to address the current context around LGBT/SOGI human rights in Brazil. This leads into a description and reflection of my participation in Sao Paulo Pride 2017. I conclude by drawing on some central observations and discuss the commercialisation, commodification and routinisation of this place and space of dissent. What is Critical Event Studies (CES)? As an approach, CES has emerged over the last few years from a confluence of influences. There is, therefore, reasonable grounds for establishing the influences that are at work within any individual researcher’s CES orientation and how they apply to a particular research topic. The diversity and polyphony of voices within CES is one of its strengths, because CES does not seek to establish a definitive or universal interpretation of an event, or to establish what the event is all about. If one recognizes 2 that all ‘events’ are contested, multiple, layered, and complex relations of other, for want of a better term, ‘sub-events’1, then an openness to an intrinsic polyphony to approaching the study of events is more honest than one that is mono-vocal. My approach to CES derives, at one level, from a shifting relationship between a philosophical conceptualisation of event that owes much to Slavoj Zizek (2014) and Alain Badiou (2013). My angle on what it means to be critical leans heavily on some of the work of Foucault (2002) and Habermas (2004), and the theories of socially constructed space influenced by Lefebvre (1991) and Soja (2000). This is accompanied with a political orientation that is indebted to the ideas of Hegemony from Gramsci (1971) as well as cultural political economy in the work of Jessop (2004). In Event: Philosophy in Transit (Zizek 2014) and more recent work, such as Disparities (2016), Zizek adopts a construal of event as rupture. In this he echoes an analogous position of Badiou (see, for example Badiou 2007 and 2003); but where Zizek sees rupture as the exposure of the Real, in the Lacanian sense of a confrontation with the inexpressible (Lacan 1968), Badiou suggests that the event can bring to light that which has lain hidden. As such carrying the potential for opening-up new possibilities (Ostwald, 2014). With that said, it cannot be assumed the event will be phenomenologically encountered in the same way by everyone. For some, the rupture will be felt so intensely it goes beyond any possible articulation in language. For others, there will be no event at all, as the apparent ‘rupture’ will be so absorbed into the discursive routines of their lives as to become blindly followed rituals (or, as Bourdieu (1994) might phrase it – the active expression of their habitus), practiced and performed as frequent and unvarying patterns of interaction and communication. In this way, reproducing patterns of dominance, domination, and symbolic capital. It is not that events produce rupture, but that the phenomenological immanence of event is that of a rupture that can disclose. This raises some associated questions – primarily, what is ruptured and what is brought to light (disclosed)? Lamond (2016) argues that it is discourses of power and regimes of truth (Foucault, 2011) that are ruptured (see also, Spracklen & Lamond, 2016), thus revealing the hegemonic imaginaries of both temporal, spatial and socio-political relationships of 1 Though, as a note of caution, one should not construe “sub-event” atomistically. 3 identity, and Othering the dominant within the cultural political economy (Jessop, 2004) in which the event occurs. In so doing, it can bring to light possibilities for change and produce a space where truth can be spoken to power, and power can be confronted (Lamond & Reid 2017). It is for these reasons that event needs to be construed as multiple, layered and encountered phenomenologically; and that all events are, through multiplicity, essentially contested. Whilst criticality, within such a conceptualisation, emerges from an urge to address issues of oppression and domination, adding an explicitly emancipatory trajectory into event studies, this has been characterised as simply placing a veneer of critical theory over existing approaches in the field (Tribe, 2008). Such ‘critical’ approaches have been in evidence for some time in the fascinating and insightful work done by sociologists of leisure and events such as Maurice Roche (2000 and 2017), Chris Rojek (2013) and others (e.g. Stebbins, 2007). Where CES can go beyond this is through a recognition that research itself is an event, placing the researcher in a contested and often uncomfortable position, which sits in a potentially rich and challenging discursive space that cuts across the palimpsest of socially constructed space (Huyssen, 200; Soja, 2000). It locates the researcher somewhere between the insider and the outsider (Mosse, 2006), the actor and the spectator (Hart, 2006).